![]() | This article is undergoing a
featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria.
Please feel free to If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jason Voorhees article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Jason Voorhees is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glen Ennis was hired to play Jason in the most dangerous stunt scenes for Freddy vs Jason. There have been reports that the Jason in the flashback at the beginning of Part 5 was John Hock. See here and here. I know these sources aren't the best but I feel like these people should be mentioned in the prose at least since it is relevant information to the portrayal of the character. Does anyone know if there have been any interviews or similar that mention these contributions? ★Trekker ( talk) 15:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a persistent level of low level vandalism on this article. Some obvious, and some not so. It seems to be mostly quickly reverted, and there appears in balance to be positive edits by IP editors who would be excluded if the article were semi-protected, so the need for protection is not obvious. Do those who edit this article regularly feel it warrants semi-protection, or can the vandalism be managed? See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection for guidance on assessing if an article needs protection. SilkTork ( talk) 17:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Bignole I read your comment on the removal of the image in the 'Appearances' section and I understand the rationale behind it. Do you agree that the section would benefit from something to break up the text, and if so what type of thing do you think could add value? Ta Vanteloop ( talk) 12:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
On
this revert restoring the headings of Creating a monster
and Men behind the mask
(rather than Development
and Actors
), is this kind of language not discouraged by
MOS:HEAD saying that headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles
, presumably including should be a recognizable name or description of the topic
? I'd also expect
WP:TONE to apply, that even pop culture articles are written with a formal tone.
The dramatic headings don't seem entirely clear here. "Men behind the mask" may just as plausibly be about the special effects team who developed the costume. And if read idiomatically, "Creating a monster" would suggest the character moving out of the original writer's control in a way that they regretted. Belbury ( talk) 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
For me "Developing Jason" would not fit because the entire article is already about him so I think something that fits with who the character is will be more adequate rather than just using his name in a sub section.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Why are we still talking about the "Making a monster" subheading as if we are in disagreement over changing it? I've already said I understand the issue. When I asked about it in my past response, was because I wasn't sure if you were saying just get rid of "Making a monster" (my most recent suggestion) or get rid of "Concept and Creation" (which would still require changing "Making a monster"). Your words were: "We can probably lose the first head line and just have it under development" --- I was not sure what you were referring to specifically. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I've adjusted it to be less confusing. We aren't a "professional encyclopedia" first; they don't write for engagement. We do write for engagement as it's part of the criteria for featured article status. Even so, the content is fine. The header is just fine. It has existed for 16 years without a problem, and gone through a peer review and FAC. You want to point to other examples, but there aren't any other examples of fictional characters who are icons that have had multiple people portraying them across time. You pointed to Jill Valentine, which only contains a section listing (in prose) the people that have voiced her or portrayed here. The "Men under the mask" section isn't some simple list of people that have put on the mask. It's way more detailed into what went into those performances and how they were selected (or replaced). There is not additional content to that Jill Valentine section (we won't talk about how it uses a single subjection, which goes against writing guidelines). I would argue you picked an inferior article for comparison to suggest that this article is somehow doing something wrong. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26, 37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69, 72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106.
At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. Listing this to FAR notice. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is undergoing a
featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria.
Please feel free to If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jason Voorhees article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Jason Voorhees is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Glen Ennis was hired to play Jason in the most dangerous stunt scenes for Freddy vs Jason. There have been reports that the Jason in the flashback at the beginning of Part 5 was John Hock. See here and here. I know these sources aren't the best but I feel like these people should be mentioned in the prose at least since it is relevant information to the portrayal of the character. Does anyone know if there have been any interviews or similar that mention these contributions? ★Trekker ( talk) 15:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a persistent level of low level vandalism on this article. Some obvious, and some not so. It seems to be mostly quickly reverted, and there appears in balance to be positive edits by IP editors who would be excluded if the article were semi-protected, so the need for protection is not obvious. Do those who edit this article regularly feel it warrants semi-protection, or can the vandalism be managed? See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection for guidance on assessing if an article needs protection. SilkTork ( talk) 17:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Bignole I read your comment on the removal of the image in the 'Appearances' section and I understand the rationale behind it. Do you agree that the section would benefit from something to break up the text, and if so what type of thing do you think could add value? Ta Vanteloop ( talk) 12:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
On
this revert restoring the headings of Creating a monster
and Men behind the mask
(rather than Development
and Actors
), is this kind of language not discouraged by
MOS:HEAD saying that headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles
, presumably including should be a recognizable name or description of the topic
? I'd also expect
WP:TONE to apply, that even pop culture articles are written with a formal tone.
The dramatic headings don't seem entirely clear here. "Men behind the mask" may just as plausibly be about the special effects team who developed the costume. And if read idiomatically, "Creating a monster" would suggest the character moving out of the original writer's control in a way that they regretted. Belbury ( talk) 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
For me "Developing Jason" would not fit because the entire article is already about him so I think something that fits with who the character is will be more adequate rather than just using his name in a sub section.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Why are we still talking about the "Making a monster" subheading as if we are in disagreement over changing it? I've already said I understand the issue. When I asked about it in my past response, was because I wasn't sure if you were saying just get rid of "Making a monster" (my most recent suggestion) or get rid of "Concept and Creation" (which would still require changing "Making a monster"). Your words were: "We can probably lose the first head line and just have it under development" --- I was not sure what you were referring to specifically. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I've adjusted it to be less confusing. We aren't a "professional encyclopedia" first; they don't write for engagement. We do write for engagement as it's part of the criteria for featured article status. Even so, the content is fine. The header is just fine. It has existed for 16 years without a problem, and gone through a peer review and FAC. You want to point to other examples, but there aren't any other examples of fictional characters who are icons that have had multiple people portraying them across time. You pointed to Jill Valentine, which only contains a section listing (in prose) the people that have voiced her or portrayed here. The "Men under the mask" section isn't some simple list of people that have put on the mask. It's way more detailed into what went into those performances and how they were selected (or replaced). There is not additional content to that Jill Valentine section (we won't talk about how it uses a single subjection, which goes against writing guidelines). I would argue you picked an inferior article for comparison to suggest that this article is somehow doing something wrong. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26, 37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69, 72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106.
At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. Listing this to FAR notice. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)